There were some front steer cars prior to '81, anything that used a Chevelle clip (all the Allison-built cars to include the DiGard cars until Darrell started driving for them, for example) was front steer. But the rear steer style that used the Ford suspension in front was the norm. Every winner in '78 was a Banjo chassis, rear steer design.

I havenít gotten my kit yet, but from looking at the pics of the trees that someone posted, are the wheels a 5 hole version?

All the pics i have seen of the actual cars look like 9-ish holes.

They are five hole. A nine hole set is being added to the chassis upgrades.

Wondering if the 9 holes from a 1990s AMT kit would fit the tires.

They do not.

Is there another option?

I would look for a set of the MPC wheels as in the Laguna S-3 kit.

pretty sure I still have a set of those in my parts box, ironically I replaced the kit wheels with 5 holes for my build. _________________ON DECK/IN THE WORKS: chassis... until the weather cooperates for painting.

First impressions on opening the box:
This is most definitely 1/25 scale, the body even looks a tad smaller than that to me.
The tires are size wise the same as the Polar Lights Charger, but they are actually better. These are solid, the PL Charger tires are flimsy and hollow.
There is some good detail on most the parts, the carb is very detailed.
For a brand new kit, there is a good bit of flash.
The chrome tree is very bright.
There are 24 ejector pin marks on the two chassis halves.
The chassis is the worse part of the kit, it is a mix of the PL Charger up front, and the old MPC GN chassis on the rear.
The instructions are very vague on location points, it is much like the PL Charger instructions.

I think there are many usable parts , but that chassis is hideous. Will it build up good? I don't know.

With better step by step instructions I would be more inclined to say yes, the fit and build may go together nicely.

Does anyone have an MPC based Chevelle (like the recent Pepsi kit) body to make a side by side comparison? Being essentially the same GM A-Body, I'm curious as to how the measurements and proportions compare._________________Bill Jobson is my real name.

I'm trying to be as fair as I can and posting good things that are in the kit.

This was posted on Facebook by Mike Herman (Mike's decals):

Quote:

OK friends, I'm going to make one post about the Salvino Olds and after that I won't discuss the kit itself. Now that people have them, there's lots and lots of discussion about what comes with it. Some good and some bad. Some people have been very insulting about the kit, but most are generally very happy to have a new producer in the business at a time when many are dropping out. So before you pass judgement on what you're getting keep these things in mind.

First, this project is being spearheaded by one guy. ONE. He's working with one 3D designer. ONE. This is his very FIRST production. This is not a team of a dozen employees with a company that's been doing it for 50 years. I can tell you what happened to the first 4-5 Powerslide releases I did over 12 years ago. After a few months they went in the garbage can. I was only out a few thousand dollars. Rick is in this for quite a bit more than that. As time went on Powerslide got better and better and now you see where they are at. Ricks kits will be the same way.

You may not like what's in the box and if so you are welcome to not purchase one if you don't like it. It's a free country. But many people are extremely happy to be able to finally be able to build an Olds kit without having to buy a resin body with vacuum formed glass and have to heavily modify it to fit a chassis.

Yes, it has some off looking parts, maybe even some that aren't right for the car. What most people don't know is the incredible goings on that comes with producing something like this. It would have brought most people to give up and forget the whole thing. The main goal of this kit was to get the finished "shelf" look right. It actually started out as a Dodge project, and the course changed several times and wound up as an Olds. it was supposed to be a Petty 1979 Daytona Olds, but Rick couldn't get the licensing in place in time. The only licensing he could get on this short notice was from the Baker family. By that time it was too late to make any chassis and suspension changes. The 3D work, which takes months, was already done. This is why some parts seem to be for another car.

Rick is dedicated to quality and I can promise you as he releases more kits, they will have changes and improvements in them. If you look at this kit and throw him under the bus, then back up over him and run him again, there's a chance that he will cancel all upcoming projects and you wont get your '73 Charger, or your '71 Road Runner or '71 Charger or even the '80s kits he's looking at like the 1986 2+2 and all the other amazing stuff he has planned. Please keep this in mind. Rick has a lot of money invested in this and I can promise you, he's not in it for the money. He's a modeler like us and knows what the missing links are in this hobby.

So that is all. I as well as most of us, want this company to succeed and with the support of his customers, I think he will. Rick and I are working together on the next releases and as always they will have Powerslide decals and I will be one of the main distributors.

Thanks for your reading and as always I look forward to supplying your hobby needs
Mike

Gary, thanks for posting the arrangement of bodies with the MPC Laguna!
I think if they are lined up by the door seams, the wheelbase would match up a bit closer. The Olds openings are closer to the cut most teams had. The Laguna openings I always felt are a bit large and over-flared._________________Bill Jobson is my real name.

Stretch a AMT TBird chassis 1/8 inch reshape the rear wheelhousings and you then have a kinda correct chassis. I found the wheel openings to be tight. I opened all four up and re flared the frt slightly. Itís nice they made them tight because different teams opened them different ways. They left some meat to accomplish this. I also rounded the top of the taillight area slightly. I moved the bottom of the rear window straps toward the middle of the car slightly.

I got mine in the mail today. While I am still disappointed in the accuracy, the quality is better that you can tell from the initial pics. The plastic seems very nice, and to my eyes the body looks pretty close.

My plan is to use an AMT ford chassis and steal the Salvino chassis for an old Petty roadrunner body I have. It will be a good fit for that.

All in all, I still donít think this kit is worth the price, but with some donor kits and creativity all is not lost.

All in all, I still donít think this kit is worth the price, but with some donor kits and creativity all is not lost.

I agree. I think they rushed it.

And for whatever reason, I still think they believe the Petty 1979 Daytona winner was a reskinned Dodge Magnum chassis. A lack of proper research is all I can see causing that.

They did not. The plan was to start with the Dodge and they didn't secure licensing. Then the license came through from Buddy's family to do the Olds. They switched canoes mid stream, since they planned on a generic chassis anyway, and put this one on the market before the suspension revisions were done.

They did not. The plan was to start with the Dodge and they didn't secure licensing. Then the license came through from Buddy's family to do the Olds. They switched canoes mid stream, since they planned on a generic chassis anyway, and put this one on the market before the suspension revisions were done.

Iíve read that, but why not go with a Baker Mopar in that case? I can think of at least five good options off the top of my head (some more realistic than others). There wouldnít have been near the criticism had it been a Mopar offering. In fact, Iíd have said it was a solid debut. The inaccuracy is what I canít get past.

They did not. The plan was to start with the Dodge and they didn't secure licensing. Then the license came through from Buddy's family to do the Olds. They switched canoes mid stream, since they planned on a generic chassis anyway, and put this one on the market before the suspension revisions were done.

Iíve read that, but why not go with a Baker Mopar in that case? I can think of at least five good options off the top of my head (some more realistic than others). There wouldnít have been near the criticism had it been a Mopar offering. In fact, Iíd have said it was a solid debut. The inaccuracy is what I canít get past.

Right, I get that. I feel similarly. The thing is, sometimes what a kit company wants to do, and what they can get license to do, are two different things. I don't know if it's a matter of Buddy's family wanting it to be the Olds, or if the license required from Harry Hyde or Petty couldn't be obtained. Something held them back. They are working right now on a MOPAR and I am working feverishly to provide them the inspiration they need to revisit the MAGNUM.

And that might have been another thing. The license to do a MAGNUM might be a tough get right now, due to the wagon version.

Either way, I see them getting a better grip every week. If we support them, and they grow, they might just surprise us in the future.

Don't lose sight of the fact they want to be the gap fillers. We finally have a shot at some of those wish lists coming true. This year we have three new NASCAR kits I had given up hope on. The Olds, and a two in one Monte. Just imagine what might be next?

Pin hole question. Would waiting longer for the plastic to cool before pushing it out of the mold reduce their depth? That would be a lot of work to putty and sand all of those!

NO...it's an easy fix but cost money. The ejection pins need to be machined and polished to become flush with the rest of the mold cavity. We can politely send them a note saying fixing the issue might sell more kits.

I have 3 of the Olds. I'll do something with them. But before I get excited about a 1973-76 Monte Carlo they really need to go to work on that chassis. I can't justify buying a 40 dollar kit just for the body. Just can't do it.

I'm a bit insulted how they seem to blow off the whole mopar chassis under a gm body issue. It appears they thought : A) no one would notice, B)no one would care, and C) everybody would be so happy to have the Olds they wouldn't be critical. I'm also taken aback by some of the nasty reactive comments from those at the company, it appears their attitude is screw you if you don't like it, we don't need your money.

Until I see a better attitude and some sort of effort to get it right, I'm not buying any more. You can't give someone a sub-par product at new great product prices and then attack them when they complain it's messed up.

I also don't buy into the be glad we have it feeling, not at 40 dollars a pop.

I have 3 of the Olds. I'll do something with them. But before I get excited about a 1973-76 Monte Carlo they really need to go to work on that chassis. I can't justify buying a 40 dollar kit just for the body. Just can't do it.

I'm a bit insulted how they seem to blow off the whole mopar chassis under a gm body issue. It appears they thought : A) no one would notice, B)no one would care, and C) everybody would be so happy to have the Olds they wouldn't be critical. I'm also taken aback by some of the nasty reactive comments from those at the company, it appears their attitude is screw you if you don't like it, we don't need your money.

Until I see a better attitude and some sort of effort to get it right, I'm not buying any more. You can't give someone a sub-par product at new great product prices and then attack them when they complain it's messed up.

I also don't buy into the be glad we have it feeling, not at 40 dollars a pop.

Especially since the basic rear steer, truck arm, Ford floorpan style of Banjo Matthews chassis was used under about 95% of the race cars from '74 until the first race of '81 (it's correct under Ford/Mercury and all the GM cars from that era). Give us a good Banjo chassis that doesn't need to be stretched and we buy them by the case to use as donors for resins and the old MPC and kit bodies. Unfortunately they chose to give us a chassis that we have to toss or buy an "upgrade kit" to not look wrong even sitting on the shelf. There will be exactly zero donor kit sales because they cut corners on the chassis.

Not really a biggie, I have a couple dozen AMT Thunderbirds that I can turn into donor chassis in about an hour of work but I would have preferred to have one with a good-fitting cage and the right wheelbase right out of the box.

I got my kit today. I posted on the 'HAPPY" thread my first quick look.
I've been on the bench since 15:00 and I am getting a good look at how the kit will go.
I did steal a GM trailing arm set up out of a AMT Kodak Olds as I could not use those leaf springs. Adapting the AMT part to the Salvino chassis too about one minute. Looks like it belongs. I built the engine box stock. Fit is very good with positive locators. The engine block is pretty good but transmission......not sure what it represents....but I left it alone. I built the roll cage separate from chassis....not bad...a little difficult but just go slow and it goes together.

I cleaned up the body mold lines. Very small and easy with a extra fine sanding stick. CLEAN out the grille opening in the body or the grille will be a tough fit. I really like the front bumper locators and how the aero fairings are molded into the rear bumper and not the body like in the past. They aid in attaching the bumper. Cool!

The JR Salvino guys are far from hacks many have said. They have some GOOD ideas and their 'idea to market in a year' is ground breaking. IT did cause some error creap but I hope they sell enough to correct these down the road and give us some 'grails' I have wanted since the 1970's. (dreaming of a 1973 Montrgo in Wood's and Panch decals.........)
I'll take some photos soon. thx

Any suggestions for detailing the billboard front bumper? I'm thinking about taking a bit off the bottom and slightly rounding it, although I'm not crazy about messing with the chrome. Just looks a little too tall for me. Also need to add vents below the rub strip. Would have been nice to have them molded in along with screen detail on the grille instead of those vertical bars.
Comments on the bumper?

No photos yet (I'll get the camera out this weekend and add photos) but I pulled everything out of the Olds box last night and dug out an AMT Thunderbird chassis that I had already lengthened and adjusted the rear wheel tubs to fit a Pepsi Laguna. No other mods as of yet. I test fit the AMT Thunderbird chassis to the Olds and the rear wheel tubs as shaped to fit up inside the Laguna fit the inside of the Olds perfectly and left the bottom of the Thunderbird rails perfectly flush with the Olds rocker panels.

The AMT firewall without the top added was just a tiny bit short of landing on the underside of the Olds cowl. I examined the AMT part that closed off the top of the firewall back to the instrument panel but decided that would make it more difficult than necessary to adapt the Olds instrument panel. Next I checked out the Olds firewall and had an idea. I razor sawed the top flange off the Olds firewall, leaving a small lip hanging down from the top part. I test fit that all together with the top part of the Olds firewall sitting on top of the AMT firewall with the vertical lip I left on the Olds firewall sitting against the front side of the AMT firewall. I had to make a couple of passes with a file across the top of the AMT firewall to knock down a bit of flash and parting line draft, when I did that the thickness of the Olds firewall top was perfect to hold the front of the AMT frame flush with the Olds rockers. Looks like the wheelbase that I adjusted for the Laguna will be about right for the Olds also, I need to verify that when I drag it out to take photos.

Tom, I'm putting the GM chassis under mine, just because that's what I have laying around. I used the AMT dash top and it was a lot of work to make it fit. I may try your route. I bent the bottom of the doors out a bit to accomodate the chassis and have yet to redo the A pillar on the cage. I've also ground out the wheel wells a bit.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/27NwGUx]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/27NwHjR]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/27NwGmP]

Tom, I'm putting the GM chassis under mine, just because that's what I have laying around. I used the AMT dash top and it was a lot of work to make it fit. I may try your route. I bent the bottom of the doors out a bit to accomodate the chassis and have yet to redo the A pillar on the cage. I've also ground out the wheel wells a bit.

I'm planning to use most of the Olds kit cage, it looks like it fits the body well and should be easy to adapt to the top of the AMT kit chassis.

I'll need to rework the AMT engine hoop bars to get them a little lower, I think. The late '80s-'90s cars had such a high cowl because the engine was all the way back underneath it!

Sounds like you have a good plan Tom. The passenger side of the body is very thick in the door and rear quarter area. I had to grind out the door area to clear the cage.

Tb

That's interesting. I had pre-ordered one from Model Roundup two or three months ago to make sure I was in the queue to get one, then I ordered another one from Mike's Decals when his arrived so I have kits from two different lots but one production run (obviously, since they produced the entire run in a week). I checked the one I got from Mike to see if it had that issue since I had read where others had observed that one side of the body is very thick. Just going by the thickness of the wheelwells that body doesn't seem to have much shift between the core and the cavity. That body seems to have a change in slope in the roof at the B post, the slope is much greater at the rear of the roof. The body I pulled out of the Model Roundup order just an hour ago didn't seem to have such a noticeable slope change in the roof but I didn't think to check for core shift in that one. I need to see if one side is thick on that body.